Mainstream Media Self-Correcting Bias?
Last night (Sunday, 26 Oct) on 60 Minutes, Steve Kroft had a piece on Nuclear Toxic Waste Disposal at Yucca Mountain. On the air, there was the requisite introduction to set up the story, as follows:
"Yucca Mountain sits on federal land in Nevada, not far from Death Valley, in a remote stretch of desert, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas."
That's fine. But Lara - I mean Steve - followed by stating (I'm quoting from memory), "If President Bush
and the U.S. government [He might've also said, "...and the Republicans" instead of "...US Gov't", but since I can't be sure, I'll let it pass
– ed] has its way, this will be the final resting place for 70,000 tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste."
But now look at the actual CBS News website's transcript
"If the U.S. government has its way, this will be the final resting place for ..."
Well, well. Someone figured out that Nuke waste was an issue for the past 20-25 years (or 3-4 presidents). This has been a political hot-potato since at least the '70s, and to lay "blame" for it on the current administration further illustrates the Mainstream Media's hatred for all things Bush. Seriously, there are many, many reasons to feel uncomfortable with current situation – so why try to make it a "Bush lied, so Las Vegas fried" issue? Sounds like we've got an agenda here, folks. So while we may present you the news, we MUST present it in such a manner as it furthers this agenda – the hell with objectivity & truth!
And if I may (and I may, since this is MY blog), what is the counter-proposal? I mean, it seems as if every one in the piece agrees that we can't keep all this nuke crap in their temp storage places, and all agree it'd be better under one roof. And they all seem to agree (except the Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham) that Yucca Mountain is the worst possible place on earth to store nuke waste. But not one has an alternate solution of any kind, nor do they mention the tens of years & millions of $$$ that went into naming this site. What then? I suppose the residents of Nevada would like to emulate former Prez Clinton, who said (from an interview in the Las Vegas Sun, 5 May 02
), "So if I were doing it, I wouldn't just say I'm sticking with Nevada, they voted for me twice, that is not what I would do. I would say the science doesn't justify it, but the utilities have a problem.
Therefore, America has a problem. Therefore, let's spend a whole lot of money to try to find another solution."
Yea gods – more money. I've always said that Clinton was the consummate politician; he hasn't lost his touch. This was exactly his modus operandi during his White House years – defer all difficult/unpopular policy decisions to further study, and if at all possible, to the next admin (see Missile Defense).
*whew* feel better already...
UPDATE: Well, I was feeling better till I re-read the 60 Minutes transcript. Then I remembered the rant I went on last night (please feel the pain of the Angry American Wife!) concerning the transportation of the nuke waste. The critics of Yucca mtn put a lot of their argument against the site by stating the risk of transporting all this crap on the nation's roads & railways. What a great opportunity for terrorists, they exclaim! And then they proceed to save all the al-Queda wannabes YEARS of research by showing EXACTLY which routes the waste will most likely traverse. It's like the "anti-war" bunch – who the HELL's side are you people on? I can just imagine the glee & smug satisfaction on their part when some nuke tanker trailer is exploded on the way through Buffalo. "See? We told you so!
". Aack!! This mentality makes me puke, esp. since – once again – they offer no alternatives. What, we wait till we develop transporters, a la Star Trek? Geez...
For those of us SICK & TIRED of the revisionistic (word?) antics of the "anti-war" crowd, go read the following (scare quotes - kinda stupid being "anti-war" now; wonder if I can initiate a Haitian anti-war protest, or even an anti-Civil War protest. Nah, that would be just... stupid).
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE IMMINENT THREAT CANARD
To quote the Shark (from who's blog I've lifted this article), "So there you have it (in) a nutshell. The administration was criticized before the war for not making a case that Iraq was an imminent threat, denied at that time that war was based on the supposition of an imminent threat, and was criticized after the war for having lied that Iraq was an imminent threat."
I suppose this piece of Brit-shit Mathspew Engel was getting away with writing this kinda "Amerikkca is the Great Satan
" crap because no one in the US reads the Guardian. Heard he has since left the country - probably a wise move. But one has to wonder why he dallied so long in the land of fat, ugly Americans...
I love the intro – "In a major investigation...". Even a cursory read of the article reveals that NO investigation occurred, at all. After finishing this read, it's hard to believe Mathspew ever visited this land, let alone did any "major investigation." For an extremely thorough fisking of his inane article, see The Edge Of England's Sword